The Unknown Loпkā Tradition and the Cultural Unconscious
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Unknown Loïkā Tradition and the Cultural Unconscious PETER FLÜGEL In the last two decades, the main focus of Jaina research has shifted from the effectively a-historical exploration of the language, con- tent and form of the Śvetāmbara canon in particular, to the histori- cal and anthropological investigation of “strategies of transmis- sion” of tradition, including “canonisation” and “transformation” (Bruhn 1987: 107f.). The guiding question in this research is how to conceptualise the relationship between continuity and change within the “Jaina tradition” (Carrithers 1990: 142). The investiga- tion of this question became imperative after the philological de- construction of earlier notions of a Jaina “ur-canon” and the “dog- matic immutability” of the Jaina doctrine (Bruhn 1987: 104, 107), as a consequence of which even the core principles of “true Jain- ism” (Dundas 1993: 253) and the term “Jaina” itself (Flügel 2005: 2-5) became problematic. THE PRESENT IN THE PAST In current academic studies, the history of the Jaina tradition is pre- dominately presented as an interactive process between texts and practices through time (Cort 1990: 59). The emphasis is on the continuity of canonical histories, monastic traditions, and religious properties,1 which offer alternative points of connection for the for- 1 See the empirical studies on Jain laity in Carrithers & Humphrey 1991. 182 PETER FLÜGEL mation of variable group identities. In this model, scripture,2 lineal descent, and the direct link to a charismatic teacher function as alternative sources of authority and legitimation as Granoff (1991: 76f.; 1993: 315), Dundas (1993: 250), Qvarnström (1998: 33f., 46) and Balbir (2003a: 267-269) have shown in their studies of late medieval Jaina sectarian traditions. Practice is not seen anymore as a mere enactment of rules, but also as an impetus for re-interpre- tation of rules or for the creation of new rules. Examples of such processes are particularly visible in the context of sectarian rivalry “expressing the stiffening of group identity, rather than the perse- vering of an archaic tradition” (Balbir 2003a: 267). Neither textual traditions nor descent constructs are now seen as static, despite the fact that innovations are within the Jaina tradition commonly intro- duced as “views well-rooted in the scriptural tradition” (Balbir 2003a: 263). Although earlier views of the unchanging nature of the princi- pal features of Jainism are being replaced by this new approach, the dominant lines of influence still run from the past to the present, from text to practice. Yet, with growing historical and ethnogra- phical information, it seems both possible and necessary to reverse the perspective. After all, in any situation, the choice is not whether to obey or to disobey transmitted rules, but which rule to obey, as the anthropologists M. Gluckman and E. Leach both noted.3 In the Jaina context, this is a truism. The amorphous nature of the canon- ical scriptures alone, not to mention the commentaries and imports from non-Jain traditions, forces strategies of selection and reduc- tion of complexity on everyone who refers to them, even disregard- ing instrumental interests. The question is not whether to obey or to disobey the scriptures, but which scripture to obey, and how to interpret it. 2 Used in a wider sense, including commentary, and ritual literature. 3 See Bloch 1989: 5; Bourdieu 1992: 53. See also Carrithers’ (2000: 834) in- vestigation of eclecticism or “polytropy” in the Jain tradition. The Unknown Loïkā 183 W. C. Smith’s (1962/1991: 168) concept of “cumulative tradi- tion” already highlighted that “a tradition” presents itself not as an entity but as “a growing congeries of items” of diverse nature, which is only “unified in the conceptual mind, by processes of conceptual abstraction”. J. Assmann’s (2000: 39f.) notion of “cul- tural memory” covers similar ground. Yet, it puts less emphasis on processes of conscious transmission and re-vitalisation of a tradi- tion through the faith of individual participants, as Smith’s notion does, or the selective instrumentalisation of the past through the “connective memory” of particular groups, as current reconstruc- tions of Jaina sectarian histories do, but focuses on the latent function of the entire “archive” (Derrida) of the amorphous “cultu- ral unconscious”. In Assmann’s view, the interesting aspects of “cultural memory” are the forgotten, ignored, obsolete, hidden, ex- cluded, suppressed or disrespected elements of a tradition, which are still accessible but unutilised and therefore “freely at one’s disposal”.4 The term “cultural memory” is wider than the term “tradition”, which in its restricted sense refers to a consciously con- structed instrumentalisation of the past in terms of present needs and interests. Though inspired by Freud’s notions of repression and latency, the “cultural unconscious” in this sense must be distin- guished both from inferred processes of “unconscious thought” and “deep motivations” (Goonasekere 1986: 7), and from spheres of value within the realm of ideology which are not systematically expressed (Laidlaw 1985: 51f.), and in this sense “unconscious” (Cort 1990: 60). It overlaps, however, with the sphere of pre- 4 Assmann 2000: 34. His definition contrasts “cultural memory”, based prima- rily on the medium of writing, with “communicative memory”, the social aspect of individual memory, and with “collective” and “connective memory”, which is primarily ritually constituted: “Das kulturelle Gedächtnis umfasst im Gegensatz zum kommunikativen Gedächtnis das Uralte, Abgelegte, Ausgelagerte und im Gegensatz zum kollektiven und Bindungsgedächtnis das Nichtinstrumentalisier- bare, Häretische, Subversive, Abgespaltene” (p. 41). He uses the term “uncon- scious transmission” (p. 40). 184 PETER FLÜGEL conscious habits, dispositions and practices (Bourdieu 1992: 52ff.) in a yet to be explored way. In this article, I will utilise this perspective for the analysis of the modern historiography of Loïkā and the Loïkāgaccha, by focusing on processes of canonisation and repression of memory, and on techniques of selective citation and re-combination of trans- mitted elements of the Jain tradition5 through which authority was claimed both by Loïkā and his successors and by modern authors who tried to establish Loïkā as an ancestral figure for competing factions of the aniconic Jaina tradition, which Loïkā is said to have founded on the basis of the scriptures alone. I will first explore the ways in which the teachings of Loïkā and the Loïkāgaccha tradi- tion have been depicted in modern literature, and how the scant information on Loïkā was compiled and redacted by different in- terested parties, and then turn to some of the texts which have been attributed to Loïkā himself to delimit the scope of his influence on the still existing but ignored Loïkāgaccha tradition, which has lost all memory of its own past and on the Sthānakavāsī and Terāpanth traditions. I am not trying to solve the presently unanswerable question of the accuracy of the transmitted historical knowledge on Loïkā’s biography and beliefs but will focus primarily on the ana- lysis of the effective history (Wirkungsgeschichte) of his ideas.6 THE UNKNOWN LOðKĀ The true nature of the biography and teachings of Loïkā is still di- sputed within the Jaina tradition, even now, more than five hundred 5 “Source quotations play an essential part in the demonstration” (Balbir 2003a: 263). Important in this context is J. Leslie’s distinction between authority and meaning (Leslie 2003: 74f.). Pioneering works on the use of quotations (uddharaõa) in the Jaina scriptures itself are the Berliner Konkordanz of K. Bruhn and C. B. Tripathi, and the recent publication of K. K. Jain (2003). The re-combination of elements always involves aspects of creative invention. 6 See Gadamer 1990: 305ff.; also Bruhn 1981: 18; 1987: 111; Gombrich 1988: 21. For an analysis of the institutional conditions of this history see also Flügel 2000; 2003a; forthcoming (c). The Unknown Loïkā 185 7 8 years after his death. It is commonly accepted that Luïkā or Loïkā was a layman who lived in Gujarāt sometime between 1415-1489. Because of his access to the Śvetāmbara scriptures, he was able to articulate a powerful, text-based critique of the laxity, śithilācāra, of contemporary Jaina mendicants, and to reject the prevailing practice of image-worship as “uncanonical”, since, in his view, it was predicated on violence and attachment to property.9 No con- sensus exists, however, on the nature of Loïkā’s influence on the formation of the aniconic mendicant traditions which emerged in the aftermath of his protest: the Loïkāgaccha tradition,10 which was founded by Bhāõā in the 1470s, and the Sthānakavāsī tradi- tions, which were established in the early 17th century by different groups of dissenting sādhus of the Loïkāgaccha who objected to the re-emergence of image-worship within the tradition. Due to a lack of reliable sources,11 nothing certain can be said at present 7 On the history of research of the aniconic Śvetāmbara traditions see Flügel 2000: 40-46; Jain & Kumār 2003: 109-115. 8 Hastīmal (1995: 765) criticises that he is variously called Luüpaka (from luñerā, thief) or luïgā (from luccā, scoundrel), etc., by his opponents, rather than by his real name. Weber (1882: 807f.) and Mālvaõiyā (1965: 185) interpret luüpaka as the Sanskrit translation of luükā (lauükā), the “breaker” or “de- stroyer” of (the worship of) images, the creator of ruins. The real name of “Loïkā” remains unknown. The first text which mentions “Śāh” as the family name seems to be the Loïkāśāha Siloko, written in Saüvat 1600 (1543/4) by the Loïkāgaccha yati Keśavaçùi. 9 Mūrtipūjaka scholars such as Devagupta Sūri (1016 CE) of the Upakeśa- gaccha defined injury to living beings committed during the construction of tem- ples and in the preparation of pūjā with flowers, fruits and water as a form of unavoidable or occupational violence (ārambhajā hiüsā) (Williams 1983: 66).